ce055p2 - sonora

version 1

03/05/2010

page

1 / 33

CE055P2 - SoNorA

O.5.4.8 – Venice Port Authority Business Case – New EU

Freight Corridors in the area of the Central Europe

Work Package WP 5 – Activating Services Along Itineraries

Action 5.4 – Port Pilot Cases

Author PP04 – Venice Port Authority - Prepared by the Research Unit “Transport, Territory and

Logistics” (TTL) of University IUAV of Venice

Version 1 Date 05.05.2010 Status final

CE055P2

South North Axis

O6.4.2 – Start up activities for market player involvement – Template for local action plans

Public

version 1

03/05/2010

page

2 / 33

New UE Freight Corridors in the area of the central Europe

Research Unit “Transport, Territory and Logistics” (TTL)-University IUAV of Venice

Final report

Index

Executive Summary: ...................................................................................................................................... 2

SECTION A – Study overview and objectives ................................................................................................. 3

SECTION B – Multimodal freight transport network ................................................................................... 4

SECTION C – Consumption and emissions .................................................................................................... 9

SECTION D – Simulation parameters .......................................................................................................... 15

SECTION E – Simulation results .................................................................................................................. 17

Executive Summary:

The following documents relates on world shipments to investigate which are the more efficient paths

or modes of transports from a commercial (time and consumption costs) and an environmental

(impacts) point of view. Particularly the freight relations existing between Asia and Europe, through

Suez Canal have been investigated. Results shows that Mediterranean and Black Sea Ports are

globally performing better than Northern Sea Ports in terms of Energy Consumption, Transit Time

and CO2 a and other GHG Emissions. Northern Adriatic and Black Sea ports have an advantage in

serving Central and Eastern European destination, while Western Mediterranean ports are better

located for Western Europe. Equivalence area between different Mediterranean and Black Sea port

regions have been detected. Considering only the “land leg” of the transport- based on existing

infrastructure - the picture change but not significantly, especially for railways transport, since

Mediterraean Ports are competitive from an environmental perspective. Indifference areas, where the

emissions equivalent for Northern Range Ports and Mediterranean - Black sea ports, have been

calculated and might be considered the “emission frontier” for port choice.

CE055P2

South North Axis


Public

version 1

03/05/2010

page

3 / 33

SECTION A – Study overview and objectives

According with European goals of planning a more sustainable chain of transport in order to limit global

warming and climate change through a reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases (such as carbondioxyde

CO2), this research aims to optimize the use of existing multimodal network. Word shipments necessarily

imply more modes of transport to reach the final destinations, which have different performances and

efficiencies. Nowadays paths choice doesn’t take into account the fact that territorial impacts, port of calls or

freight depots, for instances, are selected in relation to cost incidence or to private agreement between

operators. These could lead to misunderstanding of the current use of transport network.

In order to achieve the required CO2 reduction in the transport sector it is fundamental to evidence the

value indicators for each alternative path. Because of the large quantity of variables involved the first

application has been done on TEU shipments coming from Asia to Europe through Suez Canal.

In detail the study has defined

The railway network of central Europe, capable to achieve combined1 transport (specifically for

container), in combination with the sea ports of Northern Europe (Rotterdam-Hamburg-

Bremerhaven) and Northern Italy (Tyrrhenian and Adriatic Sea);

The road network in order to compare the value indicators obtained in a maritime-road logistic chain

or in maritime-rail logistic chain;

The economic area of influence of each port analyzed through transport variables (time) and then

environmental parameters (energy consumption and emissions);

The environmental problems connected with the current economic organization of sea lines and the

influence areas of the port systems minimizing environmental impacts;

Alternative scenarios for the most sustainable traffic organization.

The performance and environmental impacts of cargo transports partly differ between the countries.

Significant influencing factors are the topology, the types of vehicles used, and the type of energy carriers

and conversion used; this research adopted average value. The differences are not relevant in energy

consumption of similar vehicles in different countries. Thus in all countries usually relatively modern trucks

of different international manufacturers are used for long-distance traffic on road. For ship and air transport,

the existing vehicles are likewise used internationally. More differences could exist for railway transport,

where the various railway companies employ different locomotives and train configurations.

1 "COMBINED TRANSPORT: Intermodal transport where the major part of the European journey is by rail, inland waterways or

sea and any initial and/or final legs carried out by road are as short as possible" Economic Commission for Europe TERMINOLOGY

ON COMBINED TRANSPORT New York and Geneva, 2001

CE055P2

South North Axis


Public

version 1

03/05/2010

page

4 / 33

SECTION B – Multimodal freight transport network

Container shipping relation Asia-Middle East to Europe

This research has investigated International transport chains from Asia-Middle East to Europe via Suez

Canal and via European ports up to their final destination by rail or road.

Multimodal freight transport relates to shipments for which two or more transport modes are used - e.g.

ship and train, ship and truck, or ship train and truck.

Assumptions

As Port Said could be the gate of Suez Canal, it has been considered as the origin point for the comparison

between multimodal chains, so:

Paths to North Adriatic and North Tyrrhenian ports are realized through 7,500 TEU capacity Ship

Paths to Atlantic ports are realized with 9,000 TEU capacity Ship

Destination within a 200-km (124-mile) range from ports are reached by road

Destination beyond a 200-km (124-mile) range from ports are served both by rail and road system

combinations

The network simulated in the study

The first part of the study has been devoted to the elaboration of the reference multimodal graph, required

by the flow network simulation and traffic-related computation.

The multimodal graph is made up as follows:

the maritime paths from the Suez Canal (gate for the Mediterranean Sea from the Far East),

and the three port systems:

North Europe (Antwerp - Rotterdam – Bremerhaven- Hamburg),

North Tyrrhenian Sea (Genova – la Spezia),

North Adriatic (Venezia – Trieste);

the landlines (rail-road) between the three port systems and the main destination in the

Central Europe.

CE055P2

South North Axis


Public

version 1

03/05/2010

page

5 / 33

European sea ports

The main North European ports, also in terms of traffic volume handled, are: Rotterdam, Antwerp,

Bremerhaven, Hamburg. These four ports handle almost 7% of world traffic totaling a volume of over 30

million TEUs in 2007, of which 30% is the share of transhipment.

In the West Mediterranean Sea the Algeciras, Valencia and Barcelona ports are the principal ones. They

showed a consistent traffic volume (2-3 million TEU/year range) and a relevant traffic growing rate. In the

analysis of transport environmental convenience, we have only considered the port of Valencia cause both

of its geographic position and its increasing affirmation in the Spanish market of TEU movements.

Regarding the North Tyrrhenian Sea, the ports considered processing multimodal graph are Genoa, La

Spezia and Livorno. These ports are, in terms of distances and times, close to each other, and for the

subsequent simulations it was decided to consider only the port of Genoa. The main Italian ports bordering

the northern Adriatic Sea are two: Venice and Trieste. The volumes of traffic in the three Italian ports

considered is very relevant for the national market, but they are weak compared to the world volumes.

In the East European Sea ports the Costanta’s one has a relevant rule in maritime traffic of container.

CONTAINER TRAFFIC DATA

Total TEU

Ports 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005

Trieste 276,957 335,943 267,854 220,661 201,29

Venezia 379,072 329,512 316,641 289,86 290,898

Constanta 594,299 1,380,935 1,411,414 1,037,066 771,126

Livorno 778,864 745,557 657,592 658,506 638,586

La Spezia 1,046,063 1,246,139 1,187,040 1,136,664 1,024,455

Genova 1,533,627 1,766,605 1,855,026 1,657,113 1,624,964

Barcelona 1,800,213 2,569,550 2,610,099 2,318,241 2,071,481

Le Havre 2,200,000 2,488,654 2,656,167 2,130,000 2,118,509

Algeciras 3,042,759 3,324,310 3,414,345 3,256,776 3,179,300

Valencia 3,653,890 3,602,112 3,042,665 2,612,049 2,409,821

Bremerhaven 4,535,842 5,500,709 4,892,239 4,428,203 3,735,574

Hamburg 7,010,000 9,737,000 9,890,000 8,861,545 8,087,545

Antwerpen 7,309,639 8,663,736 8,175,952 7,018,911 6,482,061

Rotterdam 9,743,290 10,800,000 10,790,604 9,654,508 9,250,985

Source: Containerisation international

CE055P2

South North Axis


Public

version 1

03/05/2010

page

6 / 33

Fig. 1 European sea Ports

Maritime route distances are derived using data supplied by the maritime Authority of Venice by

considering Port Said as origin. Distances of North European ports from Port Said (and Suez Canal) ranges

between 6,000 km (Rotterdam) and the 6,500 km (Hamburg) with travel times, for direct services in the

ordinary sailing conditions, which rang between 7 days (Rotterdam) and 8 days (Hamburg).

Origin Destination Nautical miles km

Port Said Rotterdam 3,274 6,063

Port Said Antwerp 3,279 6,073

Port Said Bremerhaven 3,479 6,443

Port Said Hamburg 3,527 6,532

Source: Maritime Authority of Venice, 2009

Tab. 1 Distances Port Said - main north European ports

The distance from Port Said to the Italian ports considered is 1300-1400 nautical miles and cruise time for

direct services is slightly less than 3 days. However Maersk services operating between these ports enable

connection Port Said - Trieste in about 3 days and half, (with intermediate an stop at Damietta).

Origin Destination Nautical miles km

Port Said Trieste 1,294 2,396

Port Said Genova 1,419 2,625

Port Said Venezia 1,311 2,428

Port Said Valencia 1,667 3,088

Port Said

Costanta 1,817

3,462

Source: Maritime Authority of Venice, 2009

Tab. 2 Distances Port Said – main Mediterranean and Black Sea ports

CE055P2

South North Axis


Public

version 1

03/05/2010

page

7 / 33

Fig. 2 Maritime freight network

Railway and road freight network

Railway network and its characteristics have been deducted by different sources: The Uniform distance

table of international Freight traffic, The International Union of Railways (UIC), 2007, The Interunit

Commission technique, The International Union of combined Road-Rail transport companies. The nodes

correspond to the main freight stations and destination cities. Arches correspond to rail or road (highway)

connections.

CE055P2

South North Axis


Public

version 1

03/05/2010

page

8 / 33

Fig. 3 Railway and road European network

The routes have been calculated between the place of origin and the destination for each selected traffic

type (e.g. road, rail, ship etc.); by means of the shortest or the fastest way. If there is a highway between the

origin and the destination the lorry are assumed to use it.

CE055P2

South North Axis


Public

version 1

03/05/2010

page

9 / 33

SECTION C – Consumption and emissions

Standard transport modes and propulsion systems

Transportation of cargo in Europe is performed by different transport modes. Within this research the most

important modes using common vehicle types and propulsion systems are considered:

- road: truck trailers/articulated of about 40 tons gross weight (load capacity 2 TEU, equal to 26 tons),

moved by diesel fuel;

- rail: typical train for international transport of about 1000 tons gross weight (load capacity 30 TEU,

equal to 400 tons), motored by electricity and diesel;

MAIN FEATURES FREIGHT TRAIN TRUCK

GROSS WEIGHT [Ton] 1,000 40

TARE [Ton] 600 14

PAY LOAD [Ton] 400 26

TEU/vehicle 30 2

Tab. 3 Main transport unit using in the research

- ship: container ship medium-high 7500/9000 TEU, moved by fuel oil/marine diesel oil.

Name TEU knots

Anno di

costruzione

Lunghezza totale

[m]

Larghezza

[m]

Pescaggio

[m]

Badr Jeddah 333 11,0 1983 92,4 18,0 4,5

Siefke 520 15,0 2002 109,0 18,0 6,0

Florence 841 17,5 1995 129,8 22,0 8,3

Maersk Ahram 1.092 18,0 1998 155,0 25,0 10,0

Nele Maersk 2.226 21,0 2000 199,0 30,0 11,0

Maersk Bogor 3.400 22,5 2009 223,5 32,3 12,0

Sea-Land

Atlantic 3.460 18,0 1985 290,0 32,0 9,0

Maersk Dellys 5.089 24,3 2006 294,1 32,2 13,5

Maersk Kuantan 6.500 25,6 2007 299,0 40,0 12,0

Maersk

Karlskrona 7.403 25,6 1996 318,2 42,8 14,5

Maersk Surabaya 8.400 25,4 2006 332,0 43,2 14,5

Marit Maersk 9.000 25,0 2009 367,3 42,8 14,5

Emma Maersk 12.000 25,0 2006 397,6 56,4 16,5

Eugen Maersk 12.508 25,0 2008 397,6 56 16,5

MSC Kalina 13.800 24 2009 336,7 51 14,5

Fonte: Containerisation International, 2009

Tab. 4 Operating portacontainer 2009

Every transport vessel has a maximum load capacity which is defined by the maximum load weight

allowed and the maximum volume available. Since we are dealing with a multimodal chain the cargo unit are

assumed to be TEU. As a consequence of this all the units of measure are transformed in relation with

unitary TEU value: consumption and emissions are calculated in g/TEU km for each type of transport.

CE055P2

South North Axis


Public

version 1

03/05/2010

page

10 / 33

Fuel Consumption by Mode of Transportation

- Road

The energy consumption and emissions of road transport depends on various factors:

• vehicle size and weight, vehicle configuration (trailer), motor concept, transmission

• weight of load (load factor)

• driving pattern: influence of the driver and of the road characteristics (road category, number and

width of lines, curves, gradient).

Calculations on the consumption and the emission of the lorries have been performed considering a full

loaded vehicle. In particular the average consumption value for a 40 tons truck is equal to 500 g/km, this

correspond at 220 g/km TEU.

- Rail

The energy consumption and emissions of rail transport depend on various factors (traction type, route

characteristics) and particularly on the gross weight of the train.

The standard train which this research refers to, motored by electric traction, according to IFEU study 2

have an energy consumption of 22 Wh/gross tkm (that corresponds to nearly 62 g/TEU km); the

consumption of a diesel train is close to 5 g/gross t km (that corresponds to nearly 165 g/TEU km).

- Ship

Unitary consumption value have been calculated on the basis of an A.R.P.A.V. Italian study3 that has

determinated a methodology to define the consumption in relation to different ship function (container,

general cargo and so on). The formalized

formula to determinate TEU ship consumption

(t/day) is the following:

C=8.0052+0.00235*GT

where GT stays for Gross Tonnage

Because of the GT variation, a ship census has

been done to correlate capacity (TEU/ship) to

GT. To investigate the relationships between the

two variables a regression has been applied and

correlation coefficient r4 show a high value (next to 1).

2 EcoTransit 2008

3 ARPAV “Le emissioni da attività portuale”, 2007

4 r = dxdy/ ( dx

2 dy

2). The part above the line in this equation is a measure of the degree to which x and y vary

together (using the deviations d of each from the mean). The part below the line is a measure of the degree to which x

and y vary separately.

CE055P2

South North Axis


Public

version 1

03/05/2010

page

11 / 33

TEU/ship Gross Tonnage (t)

4,035 50,657

4,116 50,698

4,196 45,000

4,292 49,985

4,296 49,985

4,300 50,698

4,306 50,698

4,338 50,698

4,437 52,181

5,618 66,526

5,618 66,590

6,070 74,000

6,070 79,702

6,500 74,000

6,500 74,642

6,600 91,560

6,600 93,496

6,930 80,942

6,978 80,654

8,400 94,193

8,400 98,400

8,400 95,000

8,600 91,427

8,600 93,750

8,600 106,700

9,000 97,933

9,000 99,500

9,200 106,700

9,200 95,000

12,508 156,907

Fonte: Containerisation International, 2009

Tab. 5 Ship dimension elements

CE055P2

South North Axis


Public

version 1

03/05/2010

page

12 / 33

As a consequence of this, it has been evaluated the ship consumption per day in relation with capacity.

Daily consumption are settled on the basis of the distance covered of 756 km at an average service speed of

17 knots and then it has been referred to different ship capacity, as shown in the Table 6.

TEU/ship GT Consumption

[t/day]

Consumption

[g/km TEU]

5,000 59.564 148,03 39.18

5,500 65.110 161,06 38.76

6,000 70.622 174,02 38.38

6,500 76.104 186,90 38.05

7,000 81.558 199,72 37.76

7,500 86.987 212,47 37.49

8,000 92.392 225,18 37.25

8,500 97.774 237,82 37.03

9,000 103.136 250,42 36.82 Source: Our elaboration on Containerisation International data

Tab. 6 Dimension ship elements and fuel consumption

Port efficiency

Port efficiency is an important element of shipping costs but was not taken into account in the precincts of

this research because it depends on many variables.

The efficiency of a port is especially measured in terms of time waste, costs and emissions for both traffic

feeders and loading units from the moment they arrive at the terminal until the living time. An intermodal

terminal is composed of different subsystems, which interact with each other dynamically, and which convey

freight transport with an integrated transport chain through the cooperation between ships, trucks and trains.

The final aim is to handle units cheaply, quickly, reliably and flexibly. The efficiency of the terminal is

normally influenced from the infrastructural characteristics, the equipment configuration (e.g. handling

system and its performance) and productivity criteria (management and employee performance, service

organization and so on). Wasting time, costs and emissions are determined from many variable depending on

local conditions.

To have realistic values for each port it would require an estimation through the direct observation of each

one.

CE055P2

South North Axis


Public

version 1

03/05/2010

page

13 / 33

Emissions by Mode of Transportation

Emissions produced by transport system are the following:

1. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the major GHG leading to global warming. The global average temperature

increase could have serious impact on global climate, leading to sea level rise, submerging many

islands and metropolis and possibly even triggering to the acidification of the ocean ecological

system. CO2 emissions from diesel engines are proportional to their fuel consumption.

2. Nitrogen oxides (NOx). including nitrogen monoxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) emissions

are major contributors to acid rains, leading to the over-fertilization of lakes as well as the formation

of smog.

3. Sulfur oxides (SOx). including sulfur dioxide (SO2) and sulfur trioxide (SO3) lead to acid rains and

have detrimental effects on the vegetation and human health. Sox emissions are proportional to the

total fuel consumption.

4. Non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC) are an important outdoor air pollutant. The

group includes individual VOCs such as benzene, polycyclic, aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and

1.3-butadiene. Within the NMVOCs. the aromatic compounds benzene, a carcinogen, may lead to

leukemia through prolonged exposure. Many VOCs are involved in reactions that form ground-level

ozone which can damage to crops and many materials as well as potential effects on human health.

5. Particulate Matter (PM) mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air come from a

variety fuel combustion. These emissions affect particularly the human respiratory system.

The environmental impacts considered are linked to the generation of final energy and they not includ the

production and maintenance of vehicles, the construction and maintenance of transport infrastructure,

additional resource consumption like administration buildings, stations, airports.

For what it concerns the quantification of the emissions in the present study, an important choice was

needed, so as to understand the results correctly. As it clearly described in the relevant literature on the topic,

emissions are the direct consequence of two facts:

a) The conversion of primary energy into secondary energy;

b) The consumption of the delivered energy so as to produce motion, through the transformation of the

secondary energy in mechanic or electric power.

The first fact has a steady distribution over time, especially in terms of fossil fuels, since the plants

necessary for the transformation of primary energy require long-terms plans and relevant investments. The

second part produces variable emissions during time (increased energy efficiency of motors) and along space

(uneven distribution of efficient or electric vehicles). The secondary energy consumption depends from the

choice of the propelling system too.

For instance, if one considers the electricity powered rail transport, no emissions can be accounted for

during the actual transportation process, while in the case of maritime or road transport the emissions

CE055P2

South North Axis


Public

version 1

03/05/2010

page

14 / 33

depends from the mechanic technologies adopted. For this reason, after many series of comparative

elaborations it was decided that the results obtained with the present research should have accounted for the

primary energy consumption related with the transport of goods, so as to provide “objective and steady

results, comparable through time”.

The results described in the following report show that the choice of the transport modes usually doesn’t

take into account the environmental concerns related. The data provided would eventually show even worse

results if they would have been referred to the emissions connected to the final (secondary) energy

consumption too.

Obviously, all data referred to the simulation of transport are objective. As a consequence of this it would

be easy to perform an analysis of the final consumption, However, it is suggested to retain the results here

presented as an objective strategic parameter. Such results will not be significantly affected by a

technological improvement of the propulsion system of the transport means, which would eventually affect

the emissions rather than the energy consumption.

Additionally, it has to be considered that by introducing in the analysis also the emissions connected with

the final energy transformation, the ground system, if it relies on electric-powered rail systems, it would

present competitive benefits in terms of sustainability that would not be attained by other transport modes for

a time that can not be quantified at the moment. For this reason the methodology that it has been used for the

present study was the only one that would have provided sound and reliable results in relation to the present

conditions of the transportation market.

The relation between fuel and emission is reported in the table below.

Fuel CO2 Nox SO2 NMVOC PM

kg g g g g g

Gasoline 670 2.2 6.2 2.1 0.3

Diesel 470 1.8 4.4 1.5 0.24

Kerosene 450 1.8 4.3 1.5 0.23

Marine diesel oil 400 1.7 4 1.5 0.22

Source: Ecoinvent 2006

Tab. 7 Emission factors (g) related to final Energy (kg fuel)

The elaboration of the statistical data above described allow the production of the results shown in the

following table.

VALUE OF EMISSIONS PER TEU - KM

Power Source

CO2/TEU-

km (grams)

NOx/TEU-

km

(grams)

SO2/TEU-

km

(grams)

NMVOC/TEU-

km (grams)

PM/TEU-

km

(grams)

total

grams/TEU-

km

TRAIN Electric 29.314 0.112 0.274 0.094 0.015 29.81

Diesel -Electric 77.550 0.297 0.726 0.248 0.040 78.86

TRUCK Diesel 103.400 0.396 0.968 0.330 0.053 105.15

SHIP 7.500 TEU Average value

on the basis of

different engine

16.128 0.065 0.154 0.054 0.008 16.41

SHIP 9.000 TEU 16.005 0.064 0.153 0.053 0.008 16.28

Source: our elaboration

CE055P2

South North Axis


Public

version 1

03/05/2010

page

15 / 33

SECTION D – Simulation parameters

Simulation Methodology and Procedure

The multimodal networks have been defined as arcs (rail and road links) and nodes (ports, goods yards,

logistic centers). Efficiency and environment impacts of transport chains are estimated in relation to the

following parameters:

Distances from each arch have allowed the calculation of average travel times

(minutes);

Travel time simulation has been performed on road network by applying an All-or-

Nothing assignment model with flow control. This model assumed that travel time

could vary with congestion.

Consumption and emission simulation refers to unitary value calculated in a

preliminary study. These parameters have been defined for each transportation

mode. Final parameters are reported to the total emission and consumption express

per moved TEU for each relation.

The simulations were carried out using APL Language Program

Transit Time validation

Ship Container transport services: transit times are deducted on an average cruise speed of 17knots.

This value was calculated in relation to the real transit time recorded on this trade line (source:

shipping companies, Maersk, MSC, and others);

Rail network: running time has been simulated in relation with distances and the results show

commercial speed of 40 km/h (25 mph). This value has been validated by the Infrastructure Manager

data (Rfi);

Truck services: transit times were simulated in relation with the distance and they are calibrated on

the data reported by the European freight road companies and in relation with freight slots designed

by infrastructure managers.

Results

The elaboration estimated in this research has allowed:

To pick up the multimodal freight transport modal combinations related to

shipments, for example ship and train, ship and truck, ship train and truck;

To account the total energy consumption and the emissions on every arch of the

graph and for the main destination, using multimodal network;

CE055P2

South North Axis


Public

version 1

03/05/2010

page

16 / 33

To estimate the different values of the running time, the energy consumption and the

emission using different links and different integrated transport modes.

CE055P2

South North Axis


Public

version 1

03/05/2010

page

17 / 33

SECTION E – Simulation results

E1. Research results for destination area (in terms of distances, transit time, consumption and total

emissions) of shipments starting from Port Said via main European Ports.

PORT SAID– KRAKOW

Distances, Transit Time, Consumption, Emissions

CE055P2

South North Axis


Public

version 1

03/05/2010

page

18 / 33

PORT SAID – METZ


CE055P2

South North Axis


Public

version 1

03/05/2010

page

19 / 33

PORT SAID – MUNCHEN


CE055P2

South North Axis


Public

version 1

03/05/2010

page

20 / 33

PORT SAID – PARIS


Testo

CE055P2

South North Axis


Public

version 1

03/05/2010

page

21 / 33

PORT SAID – PRAHA


Testo

CE055P2

South North Axis


Public

version 1

03/05/2010

page

22 / 33

PORT SAID – WIEN


Testo

CE055P2

South North Axis


Public

version 1

03/05/2010

page

23 / 33

PORT SAID – KYJV


CE055P2

South North Axis


Public

version 1

03/05/2010

page

24 / 33

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

Transport and environmental best intermodal paths are shown in the following table in relation with different

indicators.

The elaborations show:

The North Adriatic ports are efficient in transportation terms for all European

destination examined;

The North Tyrrhenian ports present lower value only for energy consumptions and

emissions exclusively for the French area (Metz and Paris);

The North European ports are not efficient for any parameters used in the study for

all the destination assessed.

CE055P2

South North Axis


Public

version 1

03/05/2010

page

25 / 33

E2. Research results for destination area (in terms of distances, transit time, consumption and total

emissions).

Since CO2 is the dominant greenhouse gas in the transport sector, specific analyses have been performed

to underline the convenience of some transport chain in respect with other.

In the first elaboration are represented (Fig.4 and 5) only the CO2 maritime emissions related to maritime

movements from Port Said to the European ports. Figure 4 shows that the emission level to reach the north

European ports is two time and half bigger than Mediterranean ports.

Fig. 4 CO2 maritime emissions

CE055P2

South North Axis


Public

version 1

03/05/2010

page

26 / 33

Fig. 5 CO2 Maritime emissions from Port Said to main European Ports (Ships: 9000 TEU)

In another elaboration only CO2 railway impacts are investigated from Antwerpen and Venice ports,

without taking into consideration maritime route: the pictures put in evidence a indifference emissions area

in the middle of Europe.

CO2 Railway emissions from Antwerp CO2 Railway emissions from Venice

CE055P2

South North Axis


Public

version 1

03/05/2010

page

27 / 33

Overlapping the two previous elaborations, the results on total CO2 emissions generated by intermodal

shipments (ship + rail mode) -starting from Port Said to the main inland destination - via main European

ports are obtained. The aim was to evaluate and identify the convenience of choosing a port or

another to serve different inland areas.

The following maps – one for each European port considered – represent the CO2 emission

volume generated by the specific intermodal path via different ports.

The last one resumes the results of each map allowing to recognize the existence of:

- belonging areas: those areas with lower CO2 emissions if reached through a specific port;

- indifference area: those areas with equal CO2 emissions if reached through two or more ports.

CE055P2

South North Axis


Public

version 1

03/05/2010

page

28 / 33

CO2 Multimodal emissions from Port Said (sea + railway)

from Port Said to main European destinations

via Costanta

CE055P2

South North Axis


Public

version 1

03/05/2010

page

29 / 33



via Venezia

CE055P2

South North Axis


Public

version 1

03/05/2010

page

30 / 33



via Valencia

CE055P2

South North Axis


Public

version 1

03/05/2010

page

31 / 33



via Genova

CE055P2

South North Axis


Public

version 1

03/05/2010

page

32 / 33


From Port Said to Black Sea, main North Adriatic and North Tyrrhenian ports: 7.500 TEUs ships

From Port Said to main North European ports: 9.000 TEUs ships

CE055P2

South North Axis


Public

version 1

03/05/2010

page

33 / 33

Results -resumed in the last figure- show the existence of a few shipments “indifference areas”

coming from Port Said through more than one European port: the same quantity of CO2 is emitted

to reach the French-Spanish border area through both Valencia and Genoa ports; the comparison

between shipments via Costanta or Venice ports have showed a indifference area between

Bratislavia and Kracovia; there is an indifference area, included in the triangle composed of Tours,

Nantes and Bordeaux, for shipments through three ports (Venice, Genova and Valencia).

Specific convenience areas to inland destination are via:

- Valencia, all the destinations in the Portuguese and Spanish territories;

- Genoa, the area between Le Havre and Antwerpen and almost the whole of the French

territory;

- Venice, the almost whole part of Germany, a part of Poland, Czech Republic, Austria,

Switzerland, Slovenia and Croatia;

- Costanta, the almost part of the East European Countries (Romania, a part of Slovakia and

Hungaria);

- The North European ports have showed their non-convenience for any inland European

destination by the CO2 emissions point of view.

ce055p2 - sonora

Documents